DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has now provided us with the Blu-ray artwork

Further Details:
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has announced a new special edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula which stars Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. The two-disc special edition will include a newly remastered anamorphic widescreen presentation, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a video introduction by Francis Ford Coppola, an audio commentary by Coppola, a documentary, deleted scenes, the trailer, and more. A Blu-ray edition will also be available for around $28.95. We've attached the official package artwork below:

Advertisements

Comments

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

I'm someone who was almost forced to read this book, (its my husbands favorite book, reads from cover to cover and then starts again) so I needed to know what was keeping him at it, I found the film a bit of a departure from the book. The film is initially a love story. The book however is scary, my own opinion is that Dracula is not actually in the book that much, his presence however is very in the book, very clever and made him even more sinister, the way he gets into your head. The film I belive has to be looked at in its own right, and thats where Coppola made his mistake - he should have not called it Bram Stokers - Just Francis Ford Coppolas. Good movie, some bad acting and some really over acting which works a treat I think, Hopkins and Oldham are just amazing. Ryder and Reeves could have been kept out, but he needed their names in lights.

heetae wrote: I like the net but sometimes I liked the old pre net era. You went to see a movies and you liked it or not regardless of what any self appointed critics thought.

BAH! So you never read any magazines/fanzines and saw a different view? You never read letters from readers that disagreed? You never met up with a mate and found he disagreed with you on your opinion of the movie?

The Net may make it easier to give views to a wider range of people...but quite frankly EVERYONE who sess a film is a critic ( I don't get paid for it, it's not my job) because they come away with a view on a film and reasons for that view...and someone else will have the opposite view with their reasons also.

pre-Net days simply meant you had far, far less ways to share your view on a film to far, far less people. Is that a good thing?

Yeah, I can understand people's dissatisfaction with this one, but I've always liked it. I love how it's all like a surreal dream. My main complaint would be that the film is much more of a supernatural drama/love story than a horror movie; the film never really tries to scare you.

Anyway, that's not even the reason I'm posting. Does anyone know if the commentary is just a port from the Criterion laser?

For those that have read the book, you'll remember how the diary thing only works so well. How could that ever be "faithfully" adapted? Coppola's version is undoubtedly the closest to the book, but that isn't the same thing as saying it's a page-for-page retelling. Personally I like the stylized departures from the text. They really add to the cinematic expericence. BTW, Reeves does blow, but it doesn't damper the film *too* much. I love Eiko Ishioka's costumes on the cover art. The typeset is fine, it just looks odd rendered floating like it is.

der Lohmi wrote: gnomekid wrote: It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me. Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).

Coppola did Patton too. One of the greatest war films of all time thank you very much.

I'll just stick with my Superbit edition thanks. I thought it wasn't too bad a movie - but I only looked at it as being one persons interpritation of the book, not "the be all and end all" version of the book. Like who has ever really made a fantastic movie of a Stephen King Horror? (Yes, there have been a few good ones but many, many bad ones!)

finally quality cover and everybodys complains ! you get your conventional covers and everybodys cries "its always the same" ... now this is something unsual so be happy ... there should be more something daring like this out there.

OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book? Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything! A huge Mina/Dracula love plot? Wolf sex? Bendy morphing Brides? A dead poodle wig? John Lennon glasses?

Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!

Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.

Hideous turd of a movie.

I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.

Oh, yeah, John Badman's "Dracula" is SOOOOO much closer to the book! *eyes*

Rick McGrath wrote: For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..

Dave Brock wrote: Sam Spade wrote: One of the best versions of Dracula ever.

OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book? Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything! A huge Mina/Dracula love plot? Wolf sex? Bendy morphing Brides? A dead poodle wig? John Lennon glasses?

Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!

Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.

Hideous turd of a movie.

I have to agree. I saw this in a crowded theater. And the comments from the people filing out afterwards, NOT good. I had such high hopes for this film too. But it was just terrible. Skip this and rent or buy John Badman's "Dracula" with Frank Langella. Now that's a classy movie.

For all those griping about the font used for the title, it's the same that was used in the opening titles, so it's not much of a departure. I didn't despise the movie, despite it's numerous negatives, but I won't be double-dipping. I do like the cover though.

Rick McGrath wrote: For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..

That is simply your interpretation.

I can counter it simply by stating, for one, Dracula in the corner isn't looking at the Armour.

Lotsa liberties taken with the novel (2 or 3 invented plot lines I can think of) but it does retain the "journal entry" structure of the book & yes, Keanu's horrible accent could be source material for a "how to do the most unconvincing english accent ever" thesis but this film does have some rather breathtaking visuals and remarkable in-camera special effects. Coppola always gives every film he makes it's own pure visual stylization and Dracula with it's use of soundstage bound sets has an oddly fantastical look which is purely it's own. The score is extremely good as well. I have the superbit version but the commentary will alone be enough for me to pick this up and as the film is such an almost experimental technical feat I am intrigued to see what the documentary consists of as well.

i liked it. kinda c**ppy cover. that font is hideous. clearly someone was looking around in photoshop and thought "hm this font looks alright, i'll just use this one then". i doubt i'd double dip unless this got down to $10.

Special editions of this AND "Caligula" on 10-02-07?!?!?! Wow... This is like Hannukah in October!

I remember an editing teacher at my film school told us how when he was a post-production student, Francis Forda Copola and his editors were guest speakers and brought a scene from "Dracula" (where Mina and Harker say goodbye in the beginging) for the students to cut together... The twist was that they were supposed to cut around Keanu Reeves' bad acting, they all did their best, but when they screened the actual cut of the scene, they noticed that practically all of Keanu's close-ups and lines of dialogue were DELETED.

Cheddar J. Cheese wrote: Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story.

Does he? I think you'll find it was really to sucker the public into thinking they were getting something no one else had done. And all they got was the same 'nothing much to do with Dracula really' flick.

I do agree that it does do things from the book that others have not...but the main bulk of the entire film is this romance plot. And that has nothing to do with Stoker and completely changes the character of Dracula.

Dracula does not love Mina. He barely has anything at all to do with her. In fact the only time they actually meet properly is when he's physically forcing her to lick the blood from his lacerated chest "like someone forcing a kitten's head into a bowl of milk to drink". Ain't nothing romantic there!

The point of Stoker's Dracula (in fact the entire plan of Dracula) wa that he was a sodded, decayed creature looking to escape 'the old country' to the 'new world' to give life to his pitiful undead existence. He's a ruthless creature that uses people and lies to them to get what he wants. That he ONCE loved is made explicit in that superb scene with the Brides when he 'saves' Harker (and throws them the crying baby in the sack to feed on, so well done in the BBC version) but it was obviously a 'love' that we don't recognise as love and not to one specific person. It was said the the Brides in a way that implied he had loved each of them, in HIS way, as he turned them. "Yes...I too can love! You yourselves can tell it from the past".

Stoker's novel may need heavy trimming of certain elements to move them along for a film but there is nothing that needs changing and no set-piece that is not expertly written in narrative and dialogue.

I have no love (and HATE IT as an adpatation as it removes literally every single good sequence and stupidly changes the entire Harker character) for the Hammer "Dracula" either and get annoyed as hell when people say it's the best adaptation when it actually adapts almost nothing at all (literally!) from the novel.

But that did not call itself 'Bram Stoker's'.

Quote: However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention,

Point taken. Yes it was rather snooty, but the fact millions have heard Reeves' version but almost no one has heard John Stuart Anderson's amazing portrayal irks greatly. And his readings really show how damn good (and at times chilling) Stoker's writing of them was.

Dave Brock wrote: Yeah, but guess what!!?? That version, or indeed any other version, did not have the nerve to name themselves "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula". Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!

Coppola does that to everything he makes, to make sure people know who the author of the source is, and to give them credit for the story. I wouldn't get too worked up about that.

And, yes, I have read the book (surprise surprise), and yes, this does take a few liberties (you'll respond by saying "A few?", and then list them all, or... I think you've already done that, nevermind,) but this is the closest adaptation of the book I've seen. Nosferatu came pretty close in terms of basic plot, Lugosi forget it. Hammer pretty much just made up their own stories, although most were excellent films on their own. I don't remember the Langella one enough, but Mina/Lucy, there's faith to the source for you.

Quote: And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.

I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear. It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.

Yes, Reeves was pretty pitiful, no argument there. I will try to find that recording, thanks for the tip. However, I don't really think people will appreciate the term 'unenlightened', why not just 'those who haven't already', makes you sound less condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention, but it can be easily mis-interpreted.

Quote: Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.

Again, will seek out. Thank you.

Quote: And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.

Yes, his hairdo does look very queer (the boy said it), but I wouldn't say it was pure comedy. If you haven't cut your hair in a few centuries, there's only so far you can let it trail behind you before you start stacking it up on your head.

I'm just very surprised at the apparent universal hatred of this movie. Next you'll all be saying Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was terrible and wasn't Mary Shelley... Granted the one and pretty much only deviation where he re-animates Elizabeth...

Damn! Dave Brock means business! I have to agree with him, this movie sucked and it's mostly Keanu's fault. Other than the obvious plot changes, it could've been a good film without him and Winona. I read this book in high school, the same year the movie came out, and upon watching it I was stunned at how much hollywood can change a story that claims to be true to the book. The only movie I've seen that remains true to the original book is Frank Miller's Sin City.

I just got this one for $5 in the bargin bin at Wal-mart. Haven't even seen it yet. Unless I fall in love with the movie, there will be no need to upgrade. I just like Dracula, and was curious to this version.

I loved this movie and have the Superbit edition. I've also got the 3-disc Criterion Collection laserdisc with some fairly neat extras on it; I wonder if Coppola's commentary's completely new. The artwork's beautiful, I think, but I don't know if this is worth the triple-dip for me...

The Langella 70s one was changed around a lot, if anything, that's the one to complain about, not this one.

Yeah, but guess what!!?? That version, or indeed any other version, did not have the nerve to name themselves "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula". Nor did it have people who've obviously never read the damn book say it was one of the best versio of Dracula ever!

Once you call yourself 'BRAM STOKER'S' you better be f**kin like Bram Stoker!! And a huge bulk of plot with a romantic Dracula and a syrupy 'across the ages' romance with Mina HAS NOTHING AT ALL to do with Bram Stoker.

And yeah, as said, It's a forum where views are stated. You lot drooling love all over this fetid excuse for a Dracula (and indeed horror) film means I can state the opposite.

And anyone who has any love for the novel could not stand to hear the abuse handed down to the superbly written and atmospheric Harker diary entries by Reeves in this laughable Hollywood exec dross.

I advise the unenlightened to hunt out the superb, SUPERB, recording of "Dracula's Guest" by John Stuart Anderson on L.P. As it is THE finest delivery of the Harker diaries (and the finest acting of them) you will ever hear. It shows, to an even greater degree, how loathsome the Reeves' desecration was.

Failing that, watch the BBC version (lousy optical FX and dubious location footage aside) to see a faithful adpatation as well as a scene more disturbing than any of the crud in "BS Dracula" where they adapt the 'baby food' sequence.

And there was a very good reason why Mel Brooks kept the exact same wig in a (lame) parody as the one in this (supposedly) serious film...because quite frankly a dead poodle on one's head is pure comedy and death to any version of Dracula himself being taken remotely seriously.

The film is pretty weird (to say the least), but it's still great fun. The novel isn't really that interesting; real estate business and about a dozen blood transfusions on Lucy(?) seem to take up most of the story.

The cover sure is odd, but at least it's interesting. Love the colors.

For the under-educated...The cover is showing Prince Vlads armour from when he was a defender of the church/christianity...and the lower picture is of Dracula repulsed at the image of his old armour, and what it represents....fairly simple and very clever, i think anyway..

THE only reason I want this movie is because of Gary F+++ing Oldman! I knew they'd pull this sooner or later! C**p! Oh, well! This definitely looks a whole lot better than the old release that's out now.

Oldman and Hopkins are great in this movie but as a whole it was interesting to see Coppola's interpretation of this great novel. My belief is that no one will ever make the perfect Dracula movie. I've seen a bunch and some come closer than others but as whole most fail. Someday I'm hoping someone will make the consumate Dracula film but it's been done so many times I wonder if anyone in will.

if you hate a movie, why even bother reading let alone posting in a forum about it? i just never understood those people..lol

anyway i rememeber hearing about a 2 disc edition of this YEARS ago..its the reason i never bought the dvd.....about freakin time it comes....its such a pretty movie, surreal movie and annie lennox's song works so well with it

i never read the book but something interesting...in this, mina falls for dracula and lucy becomes a vampire...in the 70s version mina is turned while lucy falls, so which one is right?

OH PLEASE!!! Have you even read the book? Reeves 'acting' and delivery utterly destroyed the essential Harker diary readings and almost all of this had absolutely nothing to do with Bram Stoker's anything! A huge Mina/Dracula love plot? Wolf sex? Bendy morphing Brides? A dead poodle wig? John Lennon glasses?

Must have all been in the unpublished, secret verion of "Dracula" as none of this crud was in the novel i read!

Acting that's as hammy as something from the local butchers or as skilled as your average school play with 5 year olds is the order of the day here as well.

Damn, I was REALLY hoping this to was going to include the extended cut but it looks like the extra scenes will only been shown as deleted scenes, and I don't know if I like the new artwork or not, Dracula's armor only had about thirty seconds of screen time (I am talking with the helmet) and most of them were in silhouette so it hardly warrants being on the cover, do you think Gary Olman wanted some sort of compensation for his face being on the CE DVD cover or something?

On a side note, I feel exactly as Wired Earp does....so many freaking great releases today! GEEZ!

gnomekid wrote: It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me. Have you seen THE CONVERSATION and RUMBLE FISH? Also, ONE FROM THE HEART is one of the most magical and unfairly maligned films of all time (just IMHO, of course).

Will this look and sound any better than the Superbit. That DVD had a great dts track. Because the special features suck and i wont double dip for them. The presentation matters more to me on this film.

There are few films in the world that I can say that I truly "HATE." This abomination is one of them. I wouldn't even have minded it so much, if only they had taken the "Bram Stoker's" out of the title; the film proclaims itself to be the most faithful to Bram Stoker's original novel, when it is in fact a travesty. Dracula's a drama queen who turns into a big hairy bat thing and rapes women, Van Helsing is a horny old creep, and Mina Harker actually falls in love with Dracula?! Ugh.

It's strange; Francis Ford Coppola made three of the greatest films ever made with the first two Godfather films and Apocalypse Now (three and a half if you count the third Godfather), but aside from those his filmography has been pretty sh*tty, if you ask me.